That is why I used the IDK.
The waypoint wasn’t the bridge it was the Ghost Sign. If I remember right this was only on the part over the road, so technically to reach the waypoint you would have to stand on the road.
Harsh reading of the criteria which is why I chose IDK. We are now assuming that it is being rejected which is why it is returning so there must be a reason.
I think it’s being over thought. Its a sign on a bridge that runs overhead. You can touch the bridge on both sides via a proper footpath. No one can easily touch the sign, because its up high (but that doesn’t matter criteriawise as you can safely approach the base)
The bridge has safe pedestrian access. You can stand there and look at the sign safely and easily. (You’d actually want to stand back quite a way to look at the sign best anyway).
I think if someone wanted to reject this it would be because they felt it wasn’t interesting or distinctive enough to meet criteria.
The way I have seen this criteria discussed previously is that with overhead waypoints you need to be able to reach the spot if it was lowered to ground level.
Technically, with this nomination that would be in the road. Remember the nomination is the ghost sign not the bridge.
As stated above this is an harsh reading of the criteria which is why I used IDK originally then Skip when it started to return.
My first review did agree with you but I would not argue with anybody that did Reject for Safety.
Just want to be clear that I don’t want to speculate too much or potentially sway other voters in the future.
But I am really appreciative of everyone’s thoughts here as it’s helped me confirm that my reviewing logic is correct, or at least aligns with others.
I’ve seen this specific submission 5 times, I chose to reject due to how faded the sign was and the main photo having a quite extreme aspect ratio (3:1), which would make recognising the location from in-game photo quite difficult. I think the sign does have some merit and could make a decent submission with some changes, but the extremely similar resubmissions don’t do it any favours.
For the safety/accessibility by pedestrians part, I think it’s okay in this case. Similar to stained glass windows in churches where that portion is closed off to the public, but you can stand within 5m of its actual location and have an excellent view of the window.
I rejected this ghost sign for pedestrian access - twice. I know that’s a little harsh, but as @SlimboyFat71 said, the ghost sign is entirely over the road. The bridge itself is of no interest, so only the ghost sign is potentially eligible. I can’t be alone in rejecting it if it is appearing multiple times without being an approved wayspot showing on the nearby.
Had the story behind the ghost sign been very good, that may have been enough to overcome the access issue. It wasn’t.
Googling Ferodo Bridge comes up with a ton of references, so I think there’s some notability here. For example: Ferodo Bridges — 70 years of consistency | by Dom Whitehurst | Medium
I was also googling at the same time 
The examples do show some that stretch the full length of the bridge and some that are only over the road section (which I believe the one in question was).
Does anybody remember the location so I can take another look?
It don’t think it was this one, but it just popped into review..
Pin is on the footpath under the bridge. I think the other one was rather better but in London?
I just had that one (there isn’t much else in the queue, so we’re guaranteed to get the same submissions in review). I felt I had to skip because of none of the sign is above the pavement, but I wasn’t wanting to reject. I also don’t think that’s the one we were trying to find again.
